Here’s the manuscript for a new piece in The Mint Magazine about the language of economics.

Blair Fix

A few months ago, I went down a [rabbit
hole](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/10/30/deconstructing-econospeak/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} analyzing word frequency in economics textbooks. Henry
Leveson-Gower, editor of *The Mint Magazine*, thought the results were
interesting and asked me to write up a short piece. The *Mint* article
is now up, and is called ['Power: don't mention
it'](https://www.themintmagazine.com/power-dont-mention-it){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}. What follows is my original manuscript.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you've ever taken Economics 101, then you're familiar with its
jargon. In the course, you probably heard the words 'supply and demand'
and 'marginal utility' uttered hundreds of times. As you figured out
what these words meant, you gradually learned to speak a dialect that I
call *econospeak*.

Like all dialects, econospeak affects how you express ideas. The
vocabulary of econospeak makes it easier to express certain ideas (such
as 'market equilibrium'), but harder to express others (like
'imperialism', as we will see). This trade-off is a feature of all
specialized dialects. Physics-speak, for instance, makes it easy to talk
about the dynamics of *motion*, but difficult to talk about *emotion*.

While all scientific languages share this kind of trade-off, econospeak
is different from natural-science dialects in one key way. The natural
sciences have a solid empirical footing. Mainstream economics *does
not*. As Steve Keen showed in his book *Debunking Economics*, when the
ideas in Econ 101 are subjected to scientific scrutiny, they manifestly
fail.

Despite this scientific failure, Econ 101 charges on like a juggernaut,
largely unchanged for a half century. Why? The simplest (and most
incendiary) explanation is that the course is not teaching you science.
Rather, it is indoctrinating you in an *ideology*.

In his introductory textbook *Principles of Economics*, former Fed Chair
Ben Bernanke admits as much. He writes: "economics is not a set of
durable facts ... it is a way of thinking about the world." I agree.
Economics 101 teaches you a fact-free way of thinking --- the very
definition of an ideology.

In their book [*Capital as
Power*](http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}, political economists Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon
Bichler go further. They argue that mainstream (neoclassical) economics
is "ideology in the service of the powerful". If this is true, the
trade-offs in econospeak take on new meaning. In particular, the words
that are absent from the economics dialect indicate ideas that the
powerful wish to suppress. As we will see, what econospeak seems to
suppress is the idea of *power itself*.

### Analyzing econospeak {#analyzing-econospeak .unnumbered}

To better understand the economics dialect, I recently assembled a large
sample of economics textbooks. I measured the frequency of words in
these books, and then compared this frequency to what is found in
mainstream English (as measured by the [Google English
corpus](https://books.google.com/ngrams){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}). Here is what I found.

Unsurprisingly, economists use some words far more than average. The
word 'supply', for instance, is about *30 times* more common in
economics textbooks than in mainstream English. The word 'demand' is
about *50 times* more common.

Economists also use some words far less than average. The word
'imperialism', for instance, is about *100 times* less common in
econospeak than in mainstream English. And the word 'anti' (used to
voice opposition) is about *1000 times* less common. It seems that
economists rarely speak about imperial conquest, or of opposition to it.

We can find similar differences across the whole economics dialect.
Because there are about 35,000 unique words in my textbook sample, I
cannot discuss the results for every word. But I can show you the
'structure' of econospeak. To do so, I'll break the economics dialect
into four quadrants, as shown in Figure [1](#fig-quadrants). (If you
want to explore this data in more detail, I have built an interactive
app [available
here](https://blair-fix.shinyapps.io/deconstructing-econospeak/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}.)

[]{#fig-quadrants}

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/schematic.png?w=723&amp;ssl=1"
decoding="async" data-recalc-dims="1" />
<figcaption>Figure 1: Quadrants of econospeak. For an
interactive version of this chart, visit <a
href="https://blair-fix.shinyapps.io/deconstructing-econospeak/"
class="uri" target="_blank"
rel="noopener">https://blair-fix.shinyapps.io/deconstructing-econospeak/</a></figcaption>
</figure>

In Figure [1](#fig-quadrants), each point represents a word. The
horizontal axis shows the word's frequency in economics textbooks. The
vertical axis shows this word frequency relative to mainstream English.
I have divided the economics dialect into four quadrants that I call
'jargon', 'quirks', 'under-represented' and 'neglected'.

The 'jargon' quadrant contains words that economists use frequently, and
far more than in mainstream English. Here you will find the jargon of
economics --- words like 'supply', 'demand', 'marginal', and 'utility'.

The 'quirks' quadrant contains words that economists use infrequently in
absolute terms. But these words are so rare in mainstream English that
economists actually overuse them in relative terms. In the 'quirks'
quadrant you will find the language of economic parables.
'Superathletes', for instance, are a parable for extremely productive
people. And to be 'grasshopperish' is to be lazy.

When you learn economics, you focus on the jargon and the quirks. What
you do *not* focus on are the words in the lower two quadrants of Figure
[1](#fig-quadrants). These are words that economists underused relative
to mainstream English. You tend not to notice these underused words
because absence is difficult to spot. But when we crunch the numbers, it
becomes obvious which words economists choose not to say.

Let's look at the 'under-represented' quadrant. Here you will find words
that economists use frequently --- almost as frequently as economics
jargon. But outside of economics, these words are so common that
economists actually underuse them. In the 'under-represented' quadrant
you will find (among other things) the language used to describe the
bureaucratic structure of groups --- words like 'organizations',
'administration', 'management', and 'committee'. Economists, it seems,
prefer not to think about bureaucracy.

And now to the 'neglected' quadrant. Here live words that are common in
mainstream English, yet which economists utter rarely. It is here that
we find the language of power.

### Not speaking about power {#not-speaking-about-power .unnumbered}

Economists, it seems, do not like to speak about power. We can see this
fact in Figure [2](#fig-power). Here I show words that relate to
wielding and submitting to power. I've plotted their frequency using the
same coordinates as in Figure [1](#fig-quadrants) --- the 'quadrants of
econospeak'. I find that the vast majority of these power-speak words
live in the 'neglected' quadrant. Economists rarely utter them. And
relative to mainstream English, this constitutes massive underuse.

[]{#fig-power}

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/power_diff.png?w=723&amp;ssl=1"
decoding="async" data-recalc-dims="1" />
<figcaption>Figure 2: Econospeak neglects the language of
power.</figcaption>
</figure>

What should we make of the relative absence of power-speak in economics?
One possibility is that economists are simply unaware of the power
dynamics of modern capitalism. This is a popular argument made by
in-house critics like Wassily Leontief --- the former President of the
American Economic Association (AEA). In his [1970 presidential
address](https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/files/dennisleech/leontieftheoassnonfacts.pdf){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} to the AEA, Leontief scolded his colleagues for building
models that had little to do with reality. Economists, he claimed, made
theoretical assumptions based on 'nonobserved facts'.

In this telling, it is 'naive assumptions' that cause economists to
neglect the language of power. Leontief's criticism certainly has an
element of truth. The assumptions baked into mainstream economics models
are extremely naive --- at odds with an ever-growing array of evidence.
But what Leontief's critique does not explain is economists'
*intransigence*. It has been fifty years since Leontief scolded his
fellow economists for ignoring the real world. And yet in the time
since, Econ 101 has remained virtually unchanged. Why?

The intransigence of Econ 101 points to a darker side of economics ---
namely that the absence of power-speak is *by design*. Could it be that
economics describes the world in a way that purposely keeps the workings
of power opaque? History suggests that this idea is not so far-fetched.

### An investment in hiding power {#an-investment-in-hiding-power .unnumbered}

John D. Rockefeller --- widely regarded as the richest American who ever
lived --- was nothing if not a shrewd investor. What, then, did he
consider his 'best investment'? It was not stocks. It was not even
physical property. No, what Rockefeller would describe as his 'best
investment' was far less tangible. It was an investment in *ideology*.

In 1890, Rockefeller spent \$600,000 --- the equivalent today of about
\$170 million[^1^](#fn1){#fnref1 .footnoteRef} --- to found the
University of Chicago. While remembered as an act of philanthropy,
Rockefeller himself considered this gift an *investment* --- and his
best one at that.[^2^](#fn2){#fnref2 .footnoteRef} This was because the
University of Chicago would later promote ideas that vastly improved
Rockefeller's image.

In building his industrial empire, Rockefeller was ruthless in wielding
power. Here is how Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler describe it:

> \[Rockefeller\] invented every possible trick in limiting competition
> and output, in using religious indoctrination for profitable ends, in
> rigging stock prices and bashing unions, in enforcing 'free trade'
> while helping friendly dictators, in confiscating oil-rich territories
> and in uprooting and destroying indigenous Indian populations.
>
> ::: {style="text-align:right;"}
> (Nitzan and Bichler, 2009)
> :::

This ruthless use of power, you can imagine, gave Rockefeller a bad
image. Enter Rockefeller's 'investment'. In founding the University of
Chicago, Rockefeller created the first bastion of neoclassical
economics. It was at the University of Chicago that Milton Friedman
penned his ode to free markets, *Capitalism and Freedom*. It was there
that Theodore Schultz and Gary Becker proclaimed that income stemmed
from productive 'human capital'. And it was there that the 'Chicago
boys' were trained --- a group of Chilean economists who helped Augusto
Pinochet institute a brutal military coup in the name of the 'free
market'.

In the writings that came out of the Chicago school, ruthless acts of
power were not discussed. Instead, the focus was on a fantasy world
governed by 'perfectly competitive free markets'. This fantasy, argue
Nitzan and Bichler, "helped make Rockefeller and his like invisible". It
allowed capitalists to cloak their power in euphemistic language.
Capitalists did not wield 'power' ... they wielded 'freedom'.

A century later, Rockefeller's investment appears to still be paying
dividends. As Figure [2](#fig-power) shows, the language of power
remains conspicuously absent from economics textbooks. This absence, I
believe, is by design.

The key to successfully wielding power is to make control appear
legitimate. That requires ideology. Before capitalism, rulers
legitimized their power by tying it to divine right. In modern secular
societies, however, that's no longer an option. So rather than brag of
their God-like power, modern corporate rulers use a different tactic.
They turn to economics --- an ideology that simply *ignores* the
realities of power. Safe in this ideological obscurity, corporate rulers
wield power that rivals (or even surpasses) the kings of old.

Are economists cognizant of this game? Some may be. Most economists,
however, are likely just 'useful intellectuals' --- clever people who
are willing to delve into the intricacies of neoclassical theory without
ever questioning its core tenets. Meanwhile, with every student who gets
hoodwinked by Econ 101, the Rockefellers of the world happily reap the
benefits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Support this blog

Economics from the Top Down is where I share my ideas for how to create
a better economics. If you liked this post, consider becoming a patron.
You'll help me continue my research, and continue to share it with
readers like you.

[![patron_button](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/supporter_button-1.png?w=220&ssl=1){.size-thumbnail
.wp-image-1180 .aligncenter decoding="async" attachment-id="1180"
permalink="https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/patron_button/"
orig-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=434%2C102&ssl=1"
orig-size="434,102" comments-opened="1"
image-meta="{\"aperture\":\"0\",\"credit\":\"\",\"camera\":\"\",\"caption\":\"\",\"created_timestamp\":\"0\",\"copyright\":\"\",\"focal_length\":\"0\",\"iso\":\"0\",\"shutter_speed\":\"0\",\"title\":\"\",\"orientation\":\"0\"}"
image-title="patron_button" image-description="" image-caption=""
medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=300%2C71&ssl=1"
large-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=434%2C102&ssl=1"
recalc-dims="1"}](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/membership/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Stay updated

Sign up to get email updates from this blog.

:::: {.jetpack_subscription_widget}
## {#section .widgettitle}

::: {.wp-block-jetpack-subscriptions__container}
Email Address

Keep me up to date
:::
::::

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[![](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/by.png?w=150&ssl=1){.aligncenter
decoding="async"
recalc-dims="1"}](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"} 
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"}.
You can use/share it anyway you want, provided you attribute it to me
(Blair Fix) and link to [Economics from the Top
Down](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Notes {#notes .unnumbered}

For more details about my analysis of econospeak, see my blog post
[*Deconstructing
Econospeak*](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/10/30/deconstructing-econospeak/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}.

::: {.footnotes}
1. [In 1890, Rockefeller's \$600,000 gift was worth about 2600 times
 the US per capita income of \$230. In 2019, US income per capita was
 \$65,000. If today Rockefeller gifted 2600 times the average
 American income, it would be worth about \$170
 million.[↩](#fnref1)]{#fn1}
2. [Speaking of his endowment to the University of Chicago, Rockefeller
 reportedly said 'it was the best investment I ever made' (Collier &
 Horowitz, 1976; cited in Nitzan & Bichler, 2009).[↩](#fnref2)]{#fn2}
:::

### Further reading

:::::: {#refs .references}
::: {#ref-collier_rockefellers_1976}
Collier, P., & Horowitz, D. (1976). *The Rockefellers: An American
dynasty*. Henry Holt & Company.
:::

::: {#ref-keen_debunking_2001}
Keen, S. (2001). *Debunking economics: The naked emperor of the social
sciences*. New York: Zed Books.
:::

::: {#ref-nitzan_capital_2009}
Nitzan, J., & Bichler, S. (2009). *Capital as power: A study of order
and creorder*. New York: Routledge.
:::
::::::

A few months ago, I went down a rabbit hole analyzing word frequency in economics textbooks. Henry Leveson-Gower, editor of

 The Mint Magazine

, thought the results were interesting and asked me to write up a short piece. The

 Mint

article is now up, and is called ‘Power: don’t mention it’. What follows is my original manuscript. If you’ve ever taken Economics 101, then you’re familiar with its jargon.

Power … and the Dialect of Economics

I build an app that lets you explore my econospeak data.

I'm a fan of hands-on science. My philosophy is that you don't really
understand something until you play with the data yourself. With that in
mind, I've made an app that lets you explore the data from my last post,
[Deconstructing
Econospeak](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/10/30/deconstructing-econospeak/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}.

A brief refresher. In that post, I used a word-counting bot to analyze
the language found in undergraduate economics textbooks. The bot
returned a word's frequency in econospeak, as well as the word's
frequency relative to the Google English corpus.

I used the word-counting bot to break econospeak into 4 quadrants, as
shown in Figure 1. Here, each point is a word. The horizontal axis shows
the word's frequency in econospeak. The vertical axis shows the word's
frequency relative to the Google corpus.

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/schematic.png?w=723&amp;ssl=1"
decoding="async" data-recalc-dims="1" />
<figcaption>Figure 1: Quadrants of econospeak. In this
plot, each point is a word. The horizontal axis shows word frequency in
economics textbooks. The vertical axis shows the word’s frequency
relative to the Google corpus. See <a
href="https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/10/30/deconstructing-econospeak/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">Deconstructing Econospeak</a> for sources
and methods.</figcaption>
</figure>

Each quadrant of econospeak contains different types of words. The
'jargon' quadrant contains words that are used frequently by economists
and overused relative to the average. 'Quirks' are also overused
relative to the average, but appear rarely in economics textbooks.
'Under-represented' words are used frequently in econospeak, but less
than in average English. Finally, 'neglected' words are used rarely in
economics textbooks, and this rarity constitutes massive underuse.

I've labelled, in Figure 1, some words of interest. But there are about
34,000 other words waiting to be explored. That's where the
[Deconstructing Econospeak
App](https://blair-fix.shinyapps.io/deconstructing-econospeak/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} comes in. The app lets you search for words that
interest you. It will then show you where these words are in the
econospeak quadrants. (If a word is *missing* from econospeak, it will
show up in a table, labelled with the word's percentile in the Google
English corpus.)

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<a href="https://blair-fix.shinyapps.io/deconstructing-econospeak/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img
src="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/app_chart.png?w=723&amp;ssl=1"
decoding="async" data-recalc-dims="1" /></a>
<figcaption><a
href="https://blair-fix.shinyapps.io/deconstructing-econospeak/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Deconstructing Econospeak
App</a>. Click the image to try the app.</figcaption>
</figure>

Once you've found words that are interesting, you can download the data
and/or the chart. Feel free to share your findings widely.

The default chart is static, which allows faster searching. But if you
want to see what words correspond to each point, you can use the
`Interactive Plot` option. You can then hover over a point and the word
will be revealed. You can also zoom in and out using the tools on the
top right.

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<a href="https://blair-fix.shinyapps.io/deconstructing-econospeak/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img
src="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/app_chart_interactive.png?w=723&amp;ssl=1"
decoding="async" data-recalc-dims="1" /></a>
<figcaption><a
href="https://blair-fix.shinyapps.io/deconstructing-econospeak/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Deconstructing Econospeak App</a>
using the <code>Interactive Plot</code> option.</figcaption>
</figure>

If, after playing with the app, you want to dive deeper into the data,
you can download my whole econospeak dataset at the [Open Science
Framework](https://osf.io/afz3p/){target="_blank" rel="noopener"}.

Happy word searching!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Support this blog

Economics from the Top Down is where I share my ideas for how to create
a better economics. If you liked this post, consider becoming a patron.
You'll help me continue my research, and continue to share it with
readers like you.

[![patron_button](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/supporter_button-1.png?w=220&ssl=1){.size-thumbnail
.wp-image-1180 .aligncenter decoding="async" attachment-id="1180"
permalink="https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/patron_button/"
orig-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=434%2C102&ssl=1"
orig-size="434,102" comments-opened="1"
image-meta="{\"aperture\":\"0\",\"credit\":\"\",\"camera\":\"\",\"caption\":\"\",\"created_timestamp\":\"0\",\"copyright\":\"\",\"focal_length\":\"0\",\"iso\":\"0\",\"shutter_speed\":\"0\",\"title\":\"\",\"orientation\":\"0\"}"
image-title="patron_button" image-description="" image-caption=""
medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=300%2C71&ssl=1"
large-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=434%2C102&ssl=1"
recalc-dims="1"}](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/membership/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Stay updated

Sign up to get email updates from this blog.

:::: {.jetpack_subscription_widget}
## {#section .widgettitle}

::: {.wp-block-jetpack-subscriptions__container}
Email Address

Keep me up to date
:::
::::

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[![](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/by.png?w=150&ssl=1){.aligncenter
decoding="async"
recalc-dims="1"}](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"} 
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"}.
You can use/share it anyway you want, provided you attribute it to me
(Blair Fix) and link to [Economics from the Top
Down](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Notes

I built the Deconstructing Econospeak App using the R
[Shiny](https://shiny.rstudio.com/){target="_blank" rel="noopener"}
package. It allows you to make beautiful interactive apps with a few
lines of code --- a scientist's dream!

If you find a bug in the app, or think of a feature I should add, please
leave a comment.

I’m a fan of hands-on science. My philosophy is that you don’t really understand something until you play with the data yourself. With that in mind, I’ve made an app that lets you explore the data from my last post, Deconstructing Econospeak. A brief refresher. In that post, I used a word-counting bot to analyze the language found in undergraduate economics textbooks.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Power … and the Dialect of Economics

The Deconstructing Econospeak App